W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > September 2014

RDF 1.1 Semantics: LV and typo

From: Aidan Hogan <aidhog@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 19:20:27 -0300
Message-ID: <542343AB.5070709@gmail.com>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
Hi folks,

Regarding the RDF 1.1 Semantics document.


What is the purpose of LV? (I know there's a note in 9.1, but it's in a 
separate non-normative section.)

The definition:

	LV is defined to be ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal))

... seems to me to be circular -- in that it defines one previously 
unknown quantity in terms of another previously unknown quantity -- and 
perhaps it's unnecessary?

Would LV be equivalent to something like:

	{ v : there exists l s.t. IL(l) = v }

... in which case, could ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal)) not be equated directly 
with the above set as a true semantic condition, dropping LV altogether?

	ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal)) = { v : there exists l s.t. IL(l) = v }

(If this equality doesn't hold, I'd be interested to know why. If it 
does hold, it would seem a better option than introducing LV.)


I have a similar issue with the definition of IC:

	IC is defined to be ICEXT(I(rdfs:Class))

... it does not appear to be a semantic condition but rather an 
extension of the notion of an interpretation with the abstract idea of a 
class. Not sure what I would suggest here other than to formally extend 
the notion of an interpretation outside of the semantic conditions? 
Probably this could have been built-in earlier since, e.g., RDF also has 
some implicit notion of classes (the class rdf:Property).

(Apologies if this has been discussed before.)


Minor Typo: Alex Polleres -> Axel Polleres

Best,
Aidan
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 22:20:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:46 UTC